have 4 grams of fiber! to help support regularity! i want some... [ woman ] hop on over! [ marge ] fiber the fun way, from phillips'. if it's 3:00 in new york, it's time for "the cycle." this hour, complete coverage of the george zimmerman murder trial. both the prosecution and the defense are still trying to use that controversial 911 call to prove their case. developing now, the accused boston marathon bomber faces a judge this hour. he's also facing survivors of the deadly terror attack. and four days after that terrifying plane crash in san francisco, the faa changes the rules. all the news as it happens right now. it's "the cycle." we start in sanford, florida. it's the george zimmerman trial. right now we're hearing from a new witness, a neighbor of zimmerman's whose home was broken into while she was inside with her young child.

that incident is why george zimmerman told police he decided to start the neighborhood watch. let's listen. >> -- the person or persons involved had not been caught, right? >> right. >> and you discussed that it was your belief -- i say yours collectively, you and him -- that that person responsible lived in retreat twin lakes, right? >> it was confirmed by the police. >> that they lived inside. >> yes. >> and you discussed that with the defendant. >> and other neighbors. >> and you discussed that person lived in retreat at twin lakes near the back gate, right? >> yes. >> and then it's your understanding that at some point that person was arrested. >> yes. >> and released prior to february of 2012. >> correct. >> you -- have you watched the proceedings in this trial? >> briefly. >> what parts did you watch?

>> i believe i saw his uncle testify. >> who else? >> i don't know any by name. i haven't watched very much. >> have you tweeted about this case? >> not since -- no, i have not. >> not since what? >> maybe last year when it first happened. >> you haven't tweeted about this trial? >> i don't believe so. >> this week? >> i don't believe so. >> you do have a twitter account, correct? >> yes. >> and you follow -- you actually follow mr. o'mara, do you not? >> yes. >> and you follow an account or site called zimmerman legal case, right? >> i do. >> and you have been on nancy grace. >> yes. >> in regards to this case. >> over a year ago, yes. >> may i have just a moment,

your honor? thank you for your time. >> redirect? >> thank you. just a few follow-up questions, ma'am. when mr. zimmerman came to you to talk to you about having been victimized by a home invasion, did you consider that strange? >> no. >> were you appreciative of his efforts to help you out? >> very. >> tell me about that. >> we were terrified when this happened, and when we came home after -- we were having car troubles. we came home and he was saying he wanted to make sure we were okay. my sister didn't answer the door because she was scared about

what had gone on. i was just appreciative he was offering his hand and told me i could spend time with his wife if i needed to go somewhere during the day because i was so afraid. >> he told you his wife shelley was a nursing student, correct? >> objection as to hearsay. >> sustained. >> did he tell you -- what did he tell you about his availability, if any, of his wife to be there for you if need be? >> object to that as to hearsay and relevance. >> it's -- >> well, i'm not really having a problem with the relevance. >> i was just following up with -- okay, your honor. i'll just focus it again. were you aware that mr. z-- mrs zimmerman was there for you as well if need be? >> yes, sir. >> did you then at some point shortly thereafter go to the homeowner's association and discuss the issue of the home invasion? >> i don't believe i went. my husband did.

>> okay. and then in addition to your conversation with george zimmerman, did you talk to other people about what happened to you? >> yes. >> who was that? >> a couple of my neighbors. pete and chris. >> was this home invasion then something of a point of conversation because of the trauma you had with it? >> yes. >> as a matter of fact, did mr. zimmerman, after the homeowner's association that started the neighborhood watch, did he bring to you a lock to help you with the sliding glass door? >> yes, he did. >> did you consider that weird or unusual or strange? >> no, i was very appreciative. >> okay. were you made aware that there was an issue with problems with the sliding glass doors in your neighborhood? >> i don't believe so.

>> was it actually how they got in the house? >> yes. >> so they actually came in through the backsliding glass door? >> uh-huh, yes. >> did this lock help secure that problem? >> yes, it sits behind it and it locks it tight so they can't pull it open. >> and before you moved out, you even had -- what, didn't you get a dog to help? >> yes, we did. >> was that part of trying to just stay more secure in a neighborhood where you'd be been burglarized? >> yes, the cops told us to get a dog. >> you know the person who arrested -- who was arrested was emanuel burgess, you said. >> yes. >> and that he was released. >> yes. >> did you know he was arrested again? >> i didn't know when. we got a letter after we moved out. i didn't know exactly when he was arrested.

>> did any of your interactions with mr. zimmerman in this regard leave you with some impression that he was just too involved in trying to help you out? >> no. >> did you think that his behavior was helpful to you? >> very. >> still have the dog? >> yes. >> nothing further, your honor. >> thank you. may ms. bertalan be excused? >> she may. >> please call your next witness. >> the defense would call robert zimmerman sr., your honor.

>> lisa bloom, george zimmerman's father coming to the stand. >> yes, a former magistrate, as i recall. i would suspect this is going to be the last witness. i think the woman who just testified was excellent for the defense. she comes across as a nice young woman. obviously very appreciative to george zimmerman and set the whole tone for why the neighborhood watch was needed, which explains some of the defendant's behavior. >> all right. he's been sworn in right now. this is george zimmerman's father. >> good afternoon, sir. state your name, please. >> robert zimmerman. >> and you live here in central

florida, correct? >> yes, sir. >> how long have you lived in central florida? >> almost seven years. >> okay. you know george zimmerman as your son, i imagine? >> yes, sir. >> okay. understand, of course, he's here on a second-degree murder charge, right? >> yes, sir. i want to limit my questions to you to an event where you had an opportunity to hear what we have been calling a 911 tape or ms. lauer's 911 call. do you know what i mean when i ask you about that? >> yes, i do. >> it is a tape that includes in it some screams and a gunshot. have you heard that tape? >> yes, i have. >> we have it available. the jury has heard it dozens of times now. i'll only play it for you if you

need to hear it again. do you have a memory of it such that you remember listening to it and forming an opinion as to who you heard? >> yes, sir, i do. >> if you would just tell me the setting or the circumstances around the first time that you heard it. >> i believe the first time i heard it, it was on the third floor of this building. it was in the state attorney's office. i was there. i was put under oath. they asked me some questions. as i was getting ready to leave, they asked me if i would mind listening to this tape. i said, certainly. so they took me in a fairly small room where there was a computer. they provided me headphones, and they reminded me i was still under oath and would i listen to it. i said, yes, so i listened to

it. then they asked me, did i recognize the voice. >> and what did you tell them? >> i told them absolutely, it's my son george. >> is that an opinion that you still have through today? >> certainly. >> nothing further, your honor. >> thank you. cross? >> good afternoon, sir. >> hi, sir. >> i think you've listened to it six times. is that correct? >> i'm sorry? >> i think you've listened to that recording six times, correct? >> no. >> you have not? >> no. >> okay. if i may have a moment, judge. >> yes, you may. >> i've listened to it a number of times. i have no idea if it's six or -- >> oh, okay. >> i would probably say at least six, but -- >> more than six times?

>> i would guess at least six. i really -- >> okay. thank you very much. thank you, sir. >> any re-direct? >> no, thank you, your honor. >> may mr. zimmerman be excused? >> yes, your honor. >> subject to recall, your honor. >> thank you. you're excused from the courtroom, subject to being recalled, sir. thank you. call your next witness. >> lisa bloom, it seems to me so much of the defense's case rests on who the jury thinks was screaming whereas the prosecution is trying to make this about the totality of his interaction. >> well, i think that's a good summary of the case. i don't know how the jury can possibly conclude who was screaming on the 911 call. both sides have put forward fairly compelling witnesses to say, that's my loved one. i'm quite certain of it. i don't know how the jury can sort that out. >> seema, it seems a bit of -- it's a bit disappointing, perhaps, that we don't allow this audio -- the audio experts to come in and say what they would say. then you would have somebody who's dispassionate, perhaps,

rather than family members. >> exactly. at this point everybody cancels each other out because someone has a bias on one side or the other. having an independent expert in this scientific technology would give the jury something to really hold their hat. >> so patrick, the jury is going to have to say who they think was yelling or screaming, don't you think? >> right. a jury has to make that decision. the experts have said that they didn't feel comfortable. because it wasn't such a long call, they were uncomfortable on that. if the experts can't say with certainty what it is, that's why they weren't allowed to testify. >> paul, what do you think the jurors are going to do with this it me testimony? one family saying it was george. one family saying it was trayvon. >> the jury is going to adopt the version they believe that's going to fit with the evidence of the tape.

if they believe zimmerman's version of how the events unfolded, they're likely to believe that's his voice on the tape. i think at this point your other panelists are correct. there's been so much evidence on both sides. the jury is going to adopt a version, and it's all going to depend on which side of the case that they end up falling on. >> can i just tell you what just happened in the courtroom? >> please. >> the judge is recessing for the afternoon. she just told george zimmerman and his attorneys that when they come back, he needs to tell her whether he's going to testify or not. >> there was a rather dramatic moment, lisa, earlier on, when the judge was asking george zimmerman, do you want to testify? don west was trying to object to what judge nelson was saying. it seemed very unusual. did that moment seem unusual to you? >> >> extremely unusual. it's a common place thing in the courtroom. the judge walks the defendant through his rights. he recites he understands them. he's voluntarily waiving his

right to testify. it's all on the record. on to the next. george zimmerman seemed confused about whether he was making this decision or not. he needed more time. how much more time? he really couldn't say. don west tried to jump in and object to the judge's questions. she overruled these objections to her questions, which is, you know, highly unusual in the courtroom to object what the judge is saying. so now they're going to straighten it all out after this recess. >> lisa, let's see that moment really quick. >> you have the absolute right to remain silent. you do not have to say anything, do anything, or prove anything, is that correct? >> yes, your honor. >> and you also have the right to testify if you want to. do you understand that? >> yes, your honor. >> and i've given you an opportunity to discuss with your attorneys whether or not you want to testify in this case. you have indicated that you have had those discussions. >> yes, your honor. >> and have you made a decision, sir, as to whether or not you want to testify in this case? >> your honor, i object to that question. >> okay. overruled. have you made a decision as to whether or not you want to testify in the case? >> i object to that question. i think that's -- >> overruled.

the court is entitled to inquire if mr. zimmerman's determination as to whether or not he wants to testify. mr. zimmerman, have you made a decision as to whether or not you want to testify in this case? >> no, not at that time, your honor. >> okay. and when is it that you -- how long do you think you need before you make that decision? >> your honor, may we have an opportunity to speak? the case isn't concluded yet. >> i understand that. and i've asked mr. zimmerman if he needed more time to talk to his attorneys, and if he does, i will afford it to him. mr. zimmermazimmerman, how much time do you think you'll need? >> i would assume it would depend how long the recesses are. the end of the day. >> if your attorneys have finished with two witnesses before the end of the day, do you think you would then know whether or not you want to testify? >> your honor, on mr. zimmerman's behalf, that decision -- >> i'm asking your client questions. please, mr. west.

>> i object to the court inquiring of mr. zimmerman as to his decision about whether or not to testify -- >> your objection is overruled. mr. zimmerman, i will give you more time, sir, to discuss this with your attorneys. thank you very much. >> thank you, your honor. >> that was the heated and somewhat unusual exchange. to break it down, part of what we're seeing is the lawyer trying to preserve that objection if they ever want to appeal any issue related to this. obviously, the lawyer knows the judge is rejecting the objection because it is to the judge's decision to give some extra questioning to mr. zimmerman. pretty unusual there. obviously, a dramatic moment, although one that won't go into the jury's mindset because they weren't in it the room. what i want to do now with the time we have while we're on a short recess is turn to msnbc's craig melvin. he's at the courthouse in sanford. what can you tell us about some of the tensions inside the courtroom today? >> 15-minute recess, by the way.

that clip you just played was the tensest moment today. another tense moment was not caught on tape. this happened last night sometime around 9:30, 10:00, after a 13 1/2 hour day in the courtroom. at one point during some of the hearings last night, apparently don west implied that the state was withholding evidence after the hearing lets out. john guy, who we've seen a lot of today, the attorney for the state, goes over to the desk where the attorneys for the defense are sitting. he gets between mark o'mara and don west and essentially demands that don west apologize for offending his honor, so to speak. don west raises his voice and says, no, i'm not apologizing. it was at that point sheriffs deputies had to come down and interrupt and encourage the attorneys to leave the courtroom. >> not only honor but essentially accusing him of violating the law. >> yes, yes.

yeah, that was exactly what he was accusing him of. the apology did not happen. even before that, you know, judge nelson extended george zimmerman's curfew. what ended up happening yesterday late into the night, these hearings that were supposed to take 30 minutes, an hour, they ended up spanning two, three, and four hours. don west at one point right before judge nelson left the courtroom, don west was complaining that the pace of the trial was essentially getting to be too much for him. the hearings and the late nights and it was getting to be too much and was pleading for a later start among other things. judge nelson cuts him off midway through his plea and leaves and said they would be back at 8:00 in the morning. she did end up pushing the start time back to 9:00 a.m. but yeah, i mean, to say that nerves are frayed here, tensions are running high, would probably be a bit of an understatement.

i do want to talk to you quickly before i send it back. in terms of how the jury is responding to a lot of this -- you know, we spent a lot of time analyzing and parsing what the witnesses say. we're trying to keep a really close eye on what the jurors -- how they're reacting, if they're reacting. the point today where the jury seemed to be most engaged was when they brought out the dummd. we saw john guy on the ground with the dummy at one point. then mark o'mara with the dummy. at one point all of the jurors sitting on the back row of the jury box stood up, looked down. they were taking notes. they seemed to be engaged. there were some other points this morning where the jurors were not as engaged. of course, dennis root was on the stand for nearly four hours. >> yeah, you know, craig that's such an interesting point, speaking to someone who's worked in trials and covered trials. what we are seeing -- if you're watching at home -- is way more information than what the jury

sees. while some of those tensions you're reporting on will spill out and be somewhat evident, a lot of these hearings are not available to the jury. a lot of information is not available. that's why sometimes we see two different pictures emerge there and ultimately all that matters to this case and its disposition will be what those six people decide. craig, thank you. stay with us. everyone else, we're going to take a quick break and talk more about george zimmerman's impending decision on whether or not to take the stand. you are watching "the cycle." 5n clearance, save over $49! how bout all these bikes on rollback? like this mongoose adult bike, you save over $20! get more summer for your money at walmart's super summer savings event.

happy birthday! it's a painting easel! the tide's coming in! this is my favorite one. it's upside down. oh, sorry.

(woman vo) it takes him places he's always wanted to go. that's why we bought a subaru. (announcer) love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru. and i know savings. this metal frame pool on rollback, you save $80! and this 4 burner grill on rollback, you save $11. get more summer for your money at walmart's super summer savings event.

welcome back. you are watching live coverage on msnbc on "the cycle" of the george zimmerman trial.

we have our legal team here. we're waiting for the court to come back out of recess, which should be any moment. seema, i want to talk to you first. let's talk about what a jury actually does when they look in florida at a manslaughter charge, which is one of the potential findings of guilt that we could see here. i want to put this up. just now standard florida jury instructions for manslaughter. we see the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim is dead. as a second element, that the defendant intentionally committed an act that caused that death. and after those two things would be proven by the state, the jury has to also decide whether this individual cannot be guilty of manslaughter if the killing was justifiable. those are according to the supreme court of florida's model jury instructions. the actual jury instructions could ultimately be somewhat different in this case, but they would go along those lines. walk us through how you prove a case like that and how that looks today. >> well, they'll probably be close to that.

judges usually don't veer away from the model jury instructions. again, like you were saying -- >> for good reason. >> you were saying before about appellate issues. you're always concerned about preserving the record. so let's say we take that. now, for the viewers, the general definition of manslaughter is unlawful killing. boom. that's easy, right? at the end of the instruction that you just showed on the screen, we see the word justifiable. in english, to all of us, that means self-defense. that's what the jury has to look at, whether it was justifiable or not justifiable. that's where you get that self-defense notion into the manslaughter charge. >> and what you're going to see is whose version of the story are you going to believe? there's two different versions here. the prosecution says george zimmerman profiled trayvon martin. he's the one that had the weapon. trayvon martin was a 17-year-old teenager.

the defense is saying he was just the neighborhood watch guy. he approached this guy and was attacked, which is basically what george zimmerman is saying. again, you look at the forensic evidence. the fact that if george zimmerman was on his back, can he reach and get the weapon underneath his clothing and pull it out and shoot trayvon? versus the other forensic evidence that showed he had the grass stains on his back, and they maybe he was possibly attacked. >> let me bring in lisa and paul on a key question coming up in ten minutes or less. two questions to you, lisa. will george zimmerman testify, and should george zimmerman testify? >> no and no. next question. absolutely not. he should not testify from the defense point of view. from the prosecution point of view, absolutely. bring him on down. let him answer all of the tough questions that have never, ever been posed to him. you know, he got a couple tough questions from the detectives in this case early on, but not very many. really, he's just gotten to tell his story in narrative fashion.

i think most of us would love to see him take the stand and answer questions, but i think it's very unlikely. >> paul, he got sean hannity to question him without the possibility of cross. do you think he'll testify? >> i don't think so. i'm salivating along with the rest of america for him to get on that stand. i don't think it's likely. i think it would hurt his case for him to be able to get up there and explain those inconsistencies and be cross-examined by these very skillful prosecutors. you know, i just got to say, there's nothing greater as a prosecutor than when you see a defendant going to get on the stand because you know you can bring up all these tough questions and you can challenge him on all these inconsistencies. but i don't think it's going to happen. that's why they fought so hard with that video evidence that's going to be argument now. >> patrick, quickly, what do you think? >> one, i don't think he's going to testify. i will tell you, even though the jury should not hold that

against george zimmerman because it's his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination, in the back of their mind, the jury is going to say, why didn't he testify? >> one reason why he may not testify is we saw some testimony of a sort today. he was not exactly on the ball in answering basic questions from the judge about whether he would testify. he even at one point said, well, it depends on length of the recess. that didn't make any sense. i think he was nervous. he's maybe not been fully prepped. that gave you an indication of the kind of witness he could be. >> but seema, juries hold it against you if you don't testify. >> of course they do. they hold everything against you. we had this conversation, i remember, with the three of you. the prosecution did not have to put those statements into evidence. historically, prosecutors do not put in exculpatory statements, statements that are sel

self-serving. they should have forced his hand, made george zimmerman testify. ultimately, he would have said his story could have won fronted at least one inconsistency. >> but paul, to seema's point, weren't they in a sense trying a strategy of drawing him up there because they wanted to put so much in? >> but they would never know if he would or not. so if they didn't put that evidence in and he didn't take the stand, then their hands would be tied. they needed to put that information in and needed to put all of it in so we could see all the inconsistencies in his stories because that's what they're going to use as a foundation. >> it would have been more damaging if they put him on stand. he should testify. then all the inconsistencies would have come out, absolutely. he would have been opening doors right, left, and center. again, the jury will not get a good indication of who this man is until they see him in front of their faces. >> and it's not just inconsistencies by the way of george zimmerman this this case. there's clearly that.

you know, the things he told sean hannity. oh, i didn't know anything about self-defense. yet, he got the "a" in the class and took classes on it. also, the inconsistencies he told his best friend who wrote a book. he told the best friend, well, trayvon martin grabbed my gun. then he said, well, he didn't grab my gun, he just reached for it. there's a lot of inconsistencies on the defense side. we'll see how it plays to the jury in a few short hours. >> lisa, i want to talk to you about a subtext i've been noticing lately. normally i would say whether or not judge nelson seems to like don west and perhaps mark o'mara would not matter, but even though the jury was not in the room for some of these tense moments, jurors do pick up on the judge's opinion, the judge's attitude as sort of a fair arbiter of what's right and what's wrong. people pick up on the smallest little things. so do you think it's at all true that perhaps judge nelson is irked or annoyed with don west

and perhaps mark o'mara and the defense team? >> look, i think she's been tough on them from the very beginning, frankly. most judges extend more courtesies to the defense than to the prosecution because the defendant is the one with constitutional rights. he is on trial for murder. he is potentially facing life in prison if he's convicted. so most judges are going to bend over backwards, and if there's a close call, it's going to go for the defense. if the defense needs a little bit more time, they're going to give them a little more time, a little longer recess, start an hour later, et cetera. i think she's been very tough on this defense team from the beginning. i'm not comments on the evidence, but i don't think most of what they're asking for has been unreasonable. certainly when you go to 10:00 p.m. and you're making the decision about whether the defendant's going to testify and you're closing the defense case and you're staring down closing arguments, to ask for an additional hour in the morning is not a lot to ask for. >> let me ask seema to get a response. lisa saying maybe there's more deference there. i don't know. when i worked at new york county

public defenders, i didn't see a lot of deference to the defense side of the bar. >> never. again, i can spar with lisa because we've been friends for a long time. >> absolutely. >> are you kidding me? judges all across this country give defense attorneys a hard time. they're always on the side -- >> this is a hard time? >> waited, wait, wait. let seema finish. >> i am turning this over to patrick because he is a former prosecutor from philadelphia. are you kidding me? judges are always on your side. they're never on my side. >> well, most of the time we're fighting for true justice. we're not -- >> oh, hold on. >> defending the constitution. >> to this point, i want to show a bit of what happened last night. it seemed fairly extraordinary to me. roll that bit from last night. >> it's 10:00 at night. we started this morning. we've had full days every day. weekends, depositions at night.

>> lisa bloom, judge nelson walked out while don west was talking. is that normal? >> no, it's not normal. but she had already ruled. he kept talking. so i get it. but this isn't just about don west being tired. we get that lawyers get tired during trials. this is about a man who's fighting for somebody who's accused of murder, of second-degree murder. i mean, that's what this is really about. when he talks about working very long hours, it's about his opportunity to fully represent his client and do the best he can for his client. that's the issue. >> you think it's not that unusual? >> no, it's absolutely not unusual. the problem here is that when a judge shows his or her animosity towards the lawyer, it'll backfire. juries don't like that. juries don't like when judges play favorites. of course -- you're looking at me. what is that face? >> let me bring in paul on this.

i would think that the jury would pick up on the idea that the judge is saying, i don't like you guys, and for whatever reason, don't listen to those guys, don't believe them. believe the people who i think -- who i'm saying are actually right. >> a lot of the stuff you're seeing the jurors aren't seeing all of these arguments and confrontations. listen, there is -- >> hold on, we're going to go back to the court. >> mr. zimmerman, please stand up. i'll remind you, sir, that you're still under oath from when we had you sworn in earlier before the break. did you now have sufficient time to discuss with your attorneys whether or not you wanted to testify in this case? >> yes, your honor. >> i don't need to know what was said, but after those discussions, have you made a decision? >> yes, your honor. >> and what is your decision, sir? >> after consulting with counsel, not to testify, your honor. >> okay. you understand that no matter what counsel says to you, it's still your decision. do you understand that? >> yes, your honor. >> okay. and i need to know, is it your

decision to not testify in this case? >> yes, your honor. >> and are you making that decision freely and voluntarily? >> yes, your honor. >> has anybody promised you anything to get you to make that decision? >> no, your honor. >> has anybody threatened you? >> no, your honor. >> and this is clearly the decision that you, yourself, have made? >> yes, your honor. >> thank you very much. is the defense going to rest subject to anymore evidence being entered? >> that's correct, your honor. thank you. >> is the state going to have rebuttal evidence? testimony? >> yes, your honor. >> and how many witnesses are you going to be calling for rebuttal? >> at least two today. one who is not available today but should be available tomorrow, which we may not end up calling anyway. >> okay. i still haven't seen the proposed jury instructions. it's my understanding that a copy has been provided to the defense and a copy has been provided to mr. zimmerman. is that correct, sir? >> yes, your honor. >> okay. can i please have a copy?

are these two witnesses going to be lengthy? >> i don't think so, your honor. >> can we do a charge conference after we excuse the jury for the day? >> i don't see a reason we can't. >> we can start. we have some special jury instructions to prepare and present, but we can get a feel. i think might now be the time for me to renew my judgment of acquittal? >> then you'll rest in front of the jury and we'll go forward. >> yes. >> okay. you may proceed. >> may i be seated, your honor? >> i'm sorry, yes. >> your honor, with the length of the presentation to you earlier, i'm going to certainly abbreviate and not readdress the arguments and the case law i addressed. i would certainly ask you to reconsider those. i think that the factual basis, however, has changed somewhat, and i'm not going to recount it because i know you were sitting along with us the whole time of hearing it. the defense case has presented

now evidence that i believe uncontroverted evidence that supports my client's content that he acted in self-defense, that includes, of course, the most recent witness, mr. root. it includes dr. di maio and his expert testimony in regards to the gunshot and the other information concerning the injuries my client suffered. we also have a number of voice witnesses, if you will, those witnesses who have come back and testified before this court that they had no issue whatsoever and were quite firm in their position and belief and testimony under oath that it was my client who was screaming for help. again, i don't want to belabor the point of the previous case law, but i think that you would need to decide at this point basically that there is -- that the state has excluded at this point in the trial a reasonable hypothesis that my client is innocent.

with the strength of the defense presentation that they have failed to do so. i would ask the charges be dismissed in full. >> response? >> thank you, your honor. if anything, the state's position is that dr. di maio certainly portrayed at least one alternative scenario where the defendant could have absolutely committed second-degree murder against trayvon martin just , t being mr. martin was attempting to pull back or disengage when he was shot and murdered by this defendant. moreover, to say that mr.

more disputed, that the state has certainly submitted sufficient evidence and will again continue to do so in rebuttal to indicate that both the facts and theç inferences that can be drawn therefrom would support a jury verdict as to both murder and the lesser included manslaughter. >> very brief response. i would just ask that either the state or perhaps the court, if you're going to rule, identify the state's factual scenario, their theory of the case, anything for which there is -- that excludes a reasonable hypothesis of innocence of my client now that they finished their case and we finished our case. i would ask that be articulated in some form or fashion, either by the state so that you can make the ruling or by the court in your ruling that actually suggests that legally this judgment of acquittal should not

be grant. >> okay. thank you. the court has sat here and listened to all the witnesses. i think i previously said how many witnesses have testified on behalf of the state and defense and listened to the argument both at the close of the state's case and now at the close of the defense case. the court's decision is the same, that there is substantial evidence both direct and circumstantial to allow this charge to go to the jury. so we need to bring the jury back in. you need to rest in front of the jury. and the state be prepared to call your firstç rebuttal witness. are we ready to bring the jury in? >> is there a chance of finding out who the rebuttal witnesses are? >> we have to at some point in time deal with the mr. donnelly issue. we could do that after we've talked about it. who's the witness you're going to call next? >> first one will be adam pollack.

>> all right. can you tell us who the second one is going to be? >> david lee. >> david? >> lee. >> thank you. >> okay. they had a third witness. >> they didn't know if they were going to call that person tomorrow or not. >> i have to ascertain his certain availability. i just haven't. >> when you find out tonight, would you please e-mail the defense and let them know so they can be prepared for that in the morning? >> yes, your honor. >> i know the state understands they are bound into rebuttal. mr. pollack testified before. i want to make sure this is not a re-examination of him but it is a rebuttal to a particular fact we presented in our case. >> if it's not, you're free to object and i'll rule. >> yes, your honor. >> are we ready to bring the jury in? >> if the defense is. >> yes, your honor. >> you need to rest in front of the jury. please bring the jury in. >> and we are watching some important developments here in the george zimmerman trial. lisa bloom, we just learned several things. number one, mr.ç zimmerman wil not testify, as he told the

court in the customary fashion, directly to the judge. number two, it appears the judge will not dismiss the charges at this juncture as requested by defense. number three, we are now going to see those jury instructions come out. what do you make of what we just learned? >> well, both of those first two were to be expected. that he would not testify, that the defense would then rest. i mean, that's where we are now in the case. the state is going to call a couple of rebuttal witnesses. now, these witnesses can only talk about something that was raised by the defense case. so the topics

judge instructs the jury to look at the law in front of them. this is -- could be one of the key moments in this whole trial, right? >> that's right. you went through one of the jury instructions, maybe one of the key jury instructions, the one for manslaughter, a little earlier on in the program. i mean, the jury instructions can sometimes be a little bit dull to listen to when the judge delivers them. sometimes they can take a half an hour, an hour, or even more. this is really the key one in the case. and really, there's only a couple issues for this jury to decide. we know that george zimmerman killed trayvon martin, that trayvon martin is deceased. the only question is, was it self-defense, and did he do it with ill will and hatred in his mind if it was in the self-defense? those are the only issues the jury has to consider. >> on the issue of jury instructions, that could tip the whole thing one way or the other. >> it will be very important to see what judge nelson -- how she goes forward and instructs the jury. it will go down to the reasonableness of that self-defense of george zimmerman.

the fact is this, there's both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence that was put forth by the prosecution that really bolsters the prosecution's case, and that's why the judge ruled in their favor and against the defense in their motion to acquit. >> and paul, part of what seema -- excuse me, part of what lisa was saying is that several of the elements here are essentially undisputed. >> correct. >> that the individual is dead and that another individual shot him. so what we're looking at would be potentially the jury instructions dispute point focusing on whether this was justified. walk us through that. as a prosecutor, have you ever fought over jury instructions on this kind of case? >> you fight over jury instructions in every case because the language that is used -- and you really start arguing about commas and thes and word placement. when the jury gets it back in that room, they're going to be going over it with a fine-tooth comb to try and have the direction so that they know what

to do. how they articulate -- how the judge articulates the self-defense issue in this case is the lynch pin for the decision they're going to make when they go back and start trying to decide this case. that's why you see this big fight that they're preparing for in the middle of this trial that the judge is going to review and then i promise you, there's going to be a big fight on both sides about how the language is amended, if at all, and then how she instructs the jury. >> what we're looking for here now with the jury instructions is beyond the general what is the definition of reasonable doubt and what does a defendant not testifying really mean. we're looking for argument about the lesser included offenses. up until this point, the conversation has always been he's charged with murder in the second degree, so he'll get manslaughter and that's it. but recently the list of applicable lesser offenses to george zimmerman have been reported, and there are many. there's not just manslaughter. there may be third-degree felony

murder, aggravated battery, aggravated assault, felony battery, culpable negligence, perhaps, battery and assault. >> let's keep our eye on that. we want to dip back in, where we're seeing the beginning of rebuttal testimony by the prosecution. >> i'm sorry? >> are you now marketing the training that you gave to george zimmerman on your website? >> absolutely not. >> no? >> what's actually going on -- >> may i object, your honor, if i might. that is improper rebuttal testimony. seemingly impeachment. >> okay. well, we need to have an argument about that. approach the bench. >> and what we are witnessing here is the very beginning of

the rebuttal testimony by the prosecution. seema, we were just discussing this. in terms of what we were watching was at least an opening question, which the defense immediately objected to as impeachment. what's going on there? >> this is another thing i've never seen. usually rebuttal witnesses, rebuttal testimony is argued outside the presence of the jury before the rebuttal case starts. it's not only that rebuttal can just be about something new that the defense brought out, but it must be something that the prosecution could not have brought out on their direct case. >> in this case, where you have the gym owner who it looks like the prosecution is arguing that the gym owner is now marketing, hey, we trained george zimmerman, the guy who killed trayvon martin. this is the same gym owner -- >> well, hold on. that was one allegation raised in a question. >> right, by the prosecution today just now. >> right. >> but what i would say is what you're seeing is that gym owner who are said, hey, george zimmerman, he couldn't hurt a fly. he was unathletic. we didn't even tell him the

principles of fighting. yet, this was the george zimmerman that for over a year went into that gym three days a week, mma training, dropped about 50 pounds from 260 to 210 pounds, against trayvon martin who was only 158 pounds -- >> lisa, i want to clear what we're talking about is an opening question that hasn't been litigated. >> yes, and that's a question that should have been asked of him on cross-examination. you can't haul him back in for supposedly a rebuttal case and ask him a question, oh, i should have thought of this on cross-expectaticross cross-examination. that's the defense's point. >> it looks like the prosecution just found -- it looks like he subsequently to his testimony just within the last couple days -- >> too bad. >> exactly. >> too bad. we can't reopen it because they just figured this out. it's over. >> no, if it just happened, you can go into that -- >> not on rebuttal. >> it's not that it just

happened. it's that they didn't do due diligence they didn't find that out before he took the stand. >> hold on. i want to be precise. we're talking about two disputee prosecution is an argument about why this should come in and argument from the defense we haven't heard from the judge yet. is it possible we will learn more about this. >> it's not disputed approach. this is improper rebuttal. who's laughing now? >> lisa, you wouldn't think this is untrue, right? surely, the attorney's not going to come in and say something that he knows to be untrue. >> no, lawyers would never stretch the truth. lawyers would never -- >> a lawyer -- a lawyer might -- correct me if i'm wrong -- a state's attorney is not going to be dishonest. he may not tell the entire truth. did this gym owner advertise george zimmerman comes here or not? >> we've already seen a lot of

mistakes from the lawyers about twitter, for example. did you tweet something? they followed somebody on twitter you know, whether you advertise or somebody talked about you on social media, lawyers make mistakes like anyone else. i'm not going to assume anything from the question. >> paul, what did you think of the opening question, the beginning of the prosecution's rebuttal? >> i think it's an important point to make in front of the jury, which is why they've asked it. the issue is like lisa referencing now is the scope, you're limited in skoel when you call a rebuttal witness. income comes up all the time and the real issue is when they knew, what they knew, and whether or not the information has to do with the direct examination and the cross-examination that took place already with this witness. >> paul, you tell me if i'm right. they're trying to basically redirect, rebuttal the witness with the gym owner. >> yes. >> testimony from the defense expert witness on the use of

force, and that witness basically compared trayvon martin to chuck norris versus george zimmerman, referring to him as peewee herman. i feel like i'm in bizarreworld. zimmerman versus trayvon martin who at the time killed 158 pounds and george zimmerman, trying to make out peewee herman, trained three district attorneys a week, mma scale, dropped 50 pounds, on a scale of one to ten hes and a one. you tell me. >> that was the moment. i, like most americans, speak to my television all the time so they can hear what i'm saying. i was screaming at him telling him, you can't say that! that's inappropriate! you're trying to make this argument what trayvon martin was and how athletic he was and i think that's just as inappropriate as any of the evidence about stereotypical stuff that i knew that they were alluding to in the beginning of

the trial. >> lisa, go ahead. >> are we crossing over into some of the racial issues that have really underlied this trial from the beginning? >> exactly. >> all of the expert witness knew about trayvon martin age, height, weight. that's it. >> race. >> from that, he concluded, oh, he was very physically fit. he was able to fight. he was in a much better position to fight than george zimmerman. how on earth do you know that? we don't know anything about trayvon martin's athleticism, about any fighting skill, whether he'd be a one or a ten or in between. we don't know anything about that. yet a lot of conclusions were reached by this expert. >> let's -- let me bring that back to seema and where this is going to be decided, which is on the element of justification potentially. so this entire discussion about the size and the threat and the reasonableness of a fear of great bodily arm or death, which is the standard under florida law, right, is what all of the information and allegation goes to, this idea that they, the defense, need the jury to think

that george zimmerman reasonably apprehended for his life. >> correct. and this is all for summation. i think an interesting point that lisa brought up is underlying connotations about race. i think that you can bring this up on summation under fair comment. so the rule is, in your closing argument, you're allowed to make argument. you are allowed to fairly comment on the evidence. if there is a witness up there who's saying that 150-pound soaking wet trayvon martin is chuck norris and where is he getting that? is he getting that from whatever bias or preconceived notions he has of young black men, go for it, say it. >> you think that helps tell the jury something about a larger context that they should know when they adjudicate this? >> what's wrong with that? what is wrong which bringing in race, culture, politics into your summation? you tell the jury when they are picked, use your common sense, life experience. go for it. >> lisa bloom, you were alluding

to that, here's where the racial aspect comes in, if george zimmerman was afraid of his life partly because he's fighting with a young black man in the dark, they have to talk about that in the summation, don't they? >> this case, from the begin, got a ground swell of public support because of the racial angle. yet we have heard relatively little about it in the courtroom. what we have heard is that 100% of the time that george zimmerman called police about a suspicious person in the neighborhood, it was because of an african-american male. and one of the witnesses we heard today, the young woman who was burgerized, she wasburglized by an african-american male. does that give george zimmerman the right to call police anytime someone's walking while black in the neighborhood? i don't think so. i think this issue is there. i think the prosecution has to address it in the closing argument. i don't think they should be dancing around it. >> certainly not. thanks to our legal team. great stuff today. after this quick break, martin

bashir will pick up our coverage of the george zimmerman trial.t . [ herbie ] eh, hold on brent, what's this? mmmm, nice car. there's no doubt, that's definitely gonna throw him off. she's seen it too. oh this could be trouble. [ sentra lock noise ] oh man. gotta think fast, herbie. back pedal, back pedal. [ crowd cheering ] oh, he's down in flames and now the ice-cold shoulder. one last play... no, game over! gps take him to the dog house. [ male announcer ] make a powerful first impression. the all-new nissan sentra. ♪ the all-new nissan sentra. i've been doing a few things for playing this and trading.ove-- tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and the better i am at them, the more i enjoy them. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 so i'm always looking to take them up a notch or two. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and schwab really helps me step up my trading. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 they've now put their most powerful platform, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 streetsmart edge, in the cloud. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 so i can use it on the web, where i trade from tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 most of the time. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 which means i get schwab's most advanced tools tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 on whatever computer i'm on. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550

it's really taken my trading to the next level. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 i've also got a dedicated team of schwab trading specialists. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 they helped me set up my platform the way i wanted, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 from the comfort of my home. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and we talked about ideas and strategies, one on one! tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 really gave my trading a boost. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 all this with no trade minimums. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and only $8.95 a trade. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 after all, i'm in this to win, right? tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 open a schwab account and learn how you can earn up to 300 tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 commission-free online trades for 6 months tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 with qualifying net deposits. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 call 1-888-283-2407 today. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 ♪ chances are, you're not made of money, so don't overpay for boat insurance. geico, see how much you could save.

we are continuing with our coverage of the george zimmerman trial where the defense rested their case just moments ago. defendant george zimmerman declined his right to testify. now the prosecution will again presenting a rebuttal. once again, calling witnesses to the stand. the day actually began with judge debra nelson ruling that the animated reconstruction produced by the defense could not be used in evidence, although it can be used in

closing arguments. the judge also ruled that text messages from the phone of the deceased trayvon martin could not be used in court. let's get right to our panel. live from sanford, craig melvin, here with us in new york msnbc analyst lisa bloom and from "the washington post" craig capehart. >> right now another sidebar. adam pollock recalled, the gentleman who owned the gym where george zimmerman trained and he also trained george zimmerman for a while as well, described him as soft, said he was not athletic. first question out of the mouth of the defense porn was, are you now calling -- now advertising at your gym? this is basically where george zimmerman trained. they were asking him about using the trial as a way to advertise. the